People v. Alonzo

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. INDICA NAIDEEN ALONZO, Defendant and Appellant.

F081532

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

July 23, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County, No BF176208A David R. Lampe and Judith K. Dulcich, Judges. ^[†]

Mi Kim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Amanda D. Cary and Lewis A Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

THE COURT ^[*]

Defendant Indica Naideen Alonzo pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale and was granted a three-year term of probation. She contends on appeal that (1) the search that led to the discovery of the methamphetamine was unlawful because it was preceded by an unduly prolonged detention while officers obtained a search warrant, which became a de facto arrest without a warrant or probable cause, and (2) her term of probation must be modified to two years pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.1, ^[1] subdivision (a), as amended by Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019−2020 Reg Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1950). As to the first issue, the People disagree, arguing that the detention was minimally invasive, limited in duration, and necessary to prevent destruction of evidence. As to the second issue, the People agree that defendant is entitled to the benefit of Assembly Bill 1950, but argue that the matter must be remanded to permit the People and the trial court an opportunity to accede to a two-year term of probation or withdraw approval for the plea agreement. We vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court to modify the term of probation in conformity with Assembly Bill 1950 and to permit the People and the trial court an opportunity to accede to the modified terms of probation or withdraw approval for the plea agreement.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

On April 5, 2019, ^[2] the Kern County District Attorney filed a complaint charging defendant and her husband with transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code § 11379, subd. (a); count 1), possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 2), possession of metal knuckles (§ 21810; count 3), and possession of a blackjack (§ 22210; count 4).

On August 22, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of the search of her duffel bag and hotel room. On December 10, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress and held her to answer on counts 1 and 2.

On December 13, the Kern County District Attorney filed an information, reflecting that defendant had been held to answer on counts 1 and 2.

On June 4, 2020, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 995, again arguing that the evidence obtained from the search of her duffel bag and hotel room should be suppressed. On June 19, 2020, the trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss. On the same date, defendant pled no contest on count 2 in exchange for dismissal of count 1 and a three-year term of probation. The agreed-upon terms of probation included 180 days' work release and 100 hours community service.

On July 30, 2020, the trial court granted defendant probation on the agreed-upon terms.

On August 4, 2020, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

The Suppression Hearing

On December 10, the trial court held a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5.

On March 28, at approximately 10:15 a.m., Bakersfield Police Officer Fabian Barrales and his partner, Officer Beeson, were on patrol. Barrales saw a tan pickup truck with no front windshield wiper blades and “extremely tinted” front windows. The officers conducted a traffic stop. Richard Alonzo^[3] was the driver of the pickup. Barrales described Richard as appearing nervous-he was sweating profusely despite the cool weather and was moving his hands near his waistband where he appeared to be concealing an object.

Barrales asked Richard to step out of the pickup. Richard complied and Beeson conducted a pat-down search, revealing a three-inch fixed blade knife in Richard's waistband. Beeson conducted a records check and the officers learned that Richard had recently been arrested for narcotics trafficking. Beeson then called for a canine officer to help with a search.

Within five minutes, Officer Jonathan Berumen arrived with his canine, Rocco. Berumen and Rocco conducted a narcotics sniff of the pickup. Rocco alerted Berumen to the presence of narcotics in the pickup. Berumen and Beeson searched the pickup and discovered a bag containing 113 grams of methamphetamine, a collapsible metal baton, a set of metal knuckles, and a hotel room key card. Barrales believed that the hotel key card may unlock a room Richard used as a stash house to store additional methamphetamine. He reported the discovery of the methamphetamine and hotel room key card to Detective Carlos Arvizu.

Arvizu retrieved the hotel room key card from Barrales. Arvizu contacted the manager of the hotel and learned that the room was registered to defendant.^[4] Arvizu and other narcotics officers created a perimeter around the hotel to “freeze the location” while Arvizu authored a search warrant application and awaited approval. While Arvizu was authoring the search warrant application, he saw defendant exit the hotel carrying a large green duffel bag. Detective Diaz detained defendant and removed the duffel bag from her possession pending approval of the search warrant. Within 15 to 30 minutes of defendant's detention, at 1:26 p.m., the search warrant application was approved. The officers then searched defendant's person, the duffel bag, and the hotel room.

On that record, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress. It concluded that under those circumstances, the prewarrant detention of defendant was reasonable in duration.

The Preliminary Hearing

Immediately after denying defendant's motion to suppress, the trial court continued to the preliminary hearing (incorporating the evidence already presented for the motion to suppress).

Arvizu watched Diaz and another officer search the duffel bag and discover four plastic bags containing a total of 20.5 grams of methamphetamine, a digital scale, and two pipes for smoking methamphetamine. Arvizu then saw a loaded shotgun that Diaz found in the hotel room.

Defendant was held to answer on counts 1 and 2.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Suppress Evidence

Defendant argues that the evidence obtained in the searches of her duffel bag and hotel room should have been suppressed because they were preceded by a detention that was more than minimally intrusive and was unreasonable in duration. She contends that the detention therefore constituted a warrantless arrest without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The People disagree, as do we.

“In deciding whether relevant evidence must be suppressed, we look exclusively to the requirements of the United States Constitution. [Citation.] In reviewing a ruling on a suppression motion, we ‘defer to the trial court's factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence.' [Citation.] ‘In determining whether, on the facts so found [and/or facts that are undisputed], the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment.' [Citations.] The prosecution always bears the burden of justifying, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a warrantless search or seizure falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” (People v. Gutierrez (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1146, 1152.)

“The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.” (People v. Gallegos (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 612, 622.) Generally, police contact with individuals in public places will fall into one of three categories: (1) a consensual encounter, (2) a detention, and (3) an arrest. (People v. Bailey (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 402, 405.) Detentions are “seizures of an individual which are strictly limited in duration, scope and purpose, and which may be undertaken by the police ‘if there is an articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime.' ” (Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 784; see Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 439-440 [“ ‘[T]he stop and inquiry must be “reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation.”' ”].) Arrests, on the other hand, require probable cause. (People v. Celis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 667, 673.) “ ‘[T]here is no hard and fast line to distinguish … investigative detentions from … de facto arrests. Instead, the issue is decided on the facts of each case, with focus on whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation reasonably designed to dispel or confirm their suspicions quickly, using the least intrusive means reasonably available under the circumstances.' [Citations.] Important to this assessment, however, are the ‘duration, scope and purpose' of the stop.” (Celis, at pp. 674-675.) A detention that is unreasonably prolonged amounts to a de facto arrest that must be supported by probable cause to be constitutionally valid. (Dunaway v. New York (1979) 442 U.S. 200, 212.)

If a detention itself is unlawful, its fruits-that is, evidence subsequently obtained from searches, as well as any statements made by the defendant in connection with those searches-must be suppressed. (United States v. Crews (1980) 445 U.S. 463,...